Common sense believes that there is interaction between mind and
matter: when a stone hits us our mind feels pain, and when we will to
throw a stone it moves. The development of physics made matter seem
causally self-contained: it appeared that there were always physical
causes for the movements of matter, so that volitions must be otiose.
Descartes, believing in the conservation of vis viva, but
ignorant of the conservation of momentum, thought that the mind could
influence the direction of the motion of the animal spirits, but[Pg 157] not
its amount. This half-way house had to be abandoned by his followers,
owing to the discovery of the conservation of momentum. They therefore
decided that mind can never influence matter. They also decided that
matter can never influence mind. This latter view was not based
directly upon science, but upon the metaphysic which had been invented
to explain away the apparent influences of mind on matter. To suppose
that the movement of my arm is not caused by my volition is to suppose
something very odd; it is no odder to suppose that the perception of my
arm is not caused by my arm. The view that there were two substances,
mind and matter, and that neither could act upon the other, explained
the causal independence of the physical world, and entailed that of the
mental world. Thus mind and matter became very widely separated—much
more so than they had been before the rise of modern physics.
All modern philosophy before Kant is dominated by this problem, for
which a variety of solutions were offered. Spinoza held that there was
only one substance, whose only known attributes were thought and
extension, which ran parallel without interaction, like the two perfect
clocks of the occasionalists. Leibniz believed in an immense number of
substances, all causally independent of each other, but all running
parallel in virtue of a pre-established harmony; these substances were
all minds, more or less developed, and matter was only a confused way
of "perceiving" a number of substances. The word "perceiving" has, in
Leibniz's philosophy, a peculiar meaning, derived from parallelism and
from the notion of "mirroring the universe." Without attempting to
adhere closely to Leibniz's own words, we may set forth the view which
is implied in his system, whether he held it in its entirety or not, as
follows: Each monad, at each moment, is in an infinitely complex state,
which is capable of a one-one correspondence with the state of each
other monad at that[Pg 158] moment. (This is the pre-established harmony.)
The differences between the states of different monads are like the
differences between the aspects of a given object from different
places, and are compared by Leibniz to differences of perspective
or point of view. These differences are capable of arrangement in
a three-dimensional order, so that the monads form a pattern which
changes with the time. In addition to the one-one correspondences
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account